JSP13-81 / Rose Senior Living at Providence

ROSE SENIOR LIVING AT PROVIDENCE JSP13-81

Rose Senior Living at Providence JSP13-81 Public hearing at the request of Edward Rose and Sons for recommendation to City Council for approval of a Planned Suburban Low-Rise (PSLR) Overlay Development Agreement Application and Concept Plan. The subject property is 23.61 acres in Section 17 of the City of Novi and located on the north side of Eleven Mile Road and west of Beck Road. The applicant is proposing a 182 unit senior living facility.

Required Action Recommend approval/denial of the Planned Suburban Low-Rise (PSLR) Overlay Concept Plan to the City Council.

REVIEW RESULT DATE COMMENTS

Planning Approval recommended 03-11-14

City Council deviations to allow front yardparking (southern yard) and a minimumberm height of 2 ft. (min. 3 ft. required)requested – Staff supported

City Council deviation to allow a proposedbuilding length of 467 ft. (max. bldg. length360 ft. permitted) – Staff supported

City Council deviation to allow a maximumbldg. height of 41 ft. (max. height 35 ft.permitted) – Staff supported

City Council deviation to allow carports inthe interior side yard – Staff supported

City Council deviation to allow a businesssign and entranceway sign – Staff does notobject

City Council deviation to allow an accessdrive on a section line road – Staff does notobject

Items to be addressed on the PreliminarySite Plan submittal

Engineering Approval recommended 03-11-14

• City Council deviation to allow constructionof a stormwater detention basin overexisting sanitary sewer easement – Staffdoes not support

• Items to be addressed on the PreliminarySite Plan submittal

Traffic Approval recommended 03-07-14 Items to be addressed on the Preliminary Site

Plan submittal

Landscaping Approval recommended 03-13-14

• City Council deviations to allow a 2 ft. bermfor parking lot screening (3 ft. required), toallow a1.5 ft. to 5 ft. wall in lieu of therequired berm and for the lack of a 4 ft.

wide landscape bed around the entire building foundation – Staff supported

• Items to be addressed on the Preliminary Site Plan submittal

Wetland Approval recommended 03-11-14

• MDEQ Permit, City Wetland Non-Minor Use Permit and Authorization to Encroach into the 25 Ft. Natural Features Setback required


Woodland Approval recommended 03-11-14

• City Woodland Permit required • Items to be addressed on the Preliminary

Site Plan submittal

Façade Approval recommended 03-11-14

• City Council deviations to allow pedestrian entrances more than 60 ft. apart and an overage of asphalt shingles – Staff supported


Fire Approval recommended 03-25-14 Items to be addressed on the Preliminary Site

Plan submittal

Motion Sheet Approval –PSLR Overlay Concept Plan In the matter of Rose Senior Living at Providence, JSP13-81, motion to recommend approval of the Planned Suburban Low-Rise (PSLR) Overlay Development Agreement Application and Concept Plan based on the following findings, City Council deviations, and conditions:

a. The PSLR Overlay Development Agreement and PSLR Overlay Concept Plan will result in a recognizable and substantial benefit to the ultimate users of the project and to the community (as noted in the planning review letter);

b. In relation to the underlying zoning or the potential uses contemplated in the City of Novi Master Plan, the proposed type and density of the use will not result in an unreasonable increase in the use of public services, facilities and utilities, and will not place an unreasonable burden upon the subject property, surrounding land, nearby property owners and occupants, or the natural environment (as indicated in the applicant’s Community Impact Statement and the wetland and woodland review letters);

c. In relation to the underlying zoning or the potential uses contemplated in the City of Novi Master Plan, the proposed development will not cause a negative impact upon surrounding properties (as the proposed building has been substantially buffered by existing and created natural features and should minimally impact the surrounding properties);

d. The proposed development will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Novi Master Plan, and will be consistent with the requirements of Article 23B (as the proposed development meets the stated intent of the PSLR Overlay District to encourage transitional uses between higher intensity office and retail uses and lower intensity residential uses while maintaining the residential character of the area as outlined in the planning review letter);

e. City Council deviations for the following (as the Concept Plan provides substitute safeguards for each of the regulations and there are specific, identified features or planning mechanisms deemed beneficial to the City by the City Council which are designed into the project for the purpose of achieving the objectives for the District as stated in the planning review letter):

1. City Council deviations to allow front yard parking (southern yard) and a minimum berm height of 2 ft. (min. 3 ft. required);

2. City Council deviation to allow a proposed building length of 467 ft. (max. bldg. length 360 ft. permitted);

3. City Council deviation to allow a maximum bldg. height of 41 ft. (max. height 35 ft. permitted);

4. City Council deviation to allow carports in the interior side yard; 5. City Council deviation to allow a business sign and entranceway sign; 6. City Council deviation to allow an access drive on a section line road; 7. City Council deviations to allow a 2 ft. berm for parking lot screening (3 ft.

required), to allow a1.5 ft. to 5 ft. wall in lieu of the required berm and for the lack of a 4 ft. wide landscape bed around the entire building foundation; and

8. City Council deviations to allow pedestrian entrances more than 60 ft. apart and an overage of asphalt shingles;

f. The applicant revising the plan to relocate the proposed stormwater detention basin so that it does not cover the existing sanitary sewer easement or relocate the sanitary sewer accordingly;

g. The findings of compliance with Ordinance standards in the staff and consultant review letters and the conditions and the items listed in those letters being addressed on the Preliminary Site Plan; and

h. (additional comments here if any) (because the plan is otherwise in compliance with Article 23B, Article 24 and Article 25 of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of the Ordinance.) -OR- Denial – PSLR Overlay Concept Plan In the matter of Rose Senior Living at Providence, JSP13-81, motion to recommend denial of the Planned Suburban Low-Rise (PSLR) Overlay Development Agreement Application and Concept Plan…(because the proposed concept plan would not satisfy the findings and conditions noted in Article 23B of the Zoning Ordinance.)

Maps Location Zoning

Future Land Use Natural Features

0 175 350 52587.5

Feet

1 inch = 318 feet

Rose Senior Living at Providence JSP13-81Location

Map Author: Kristen KapelanskiDate: 03-31-14Project: Rose Senior Living JSP13-81Version #: 1.0

Map information depicted is not intended to replace or substitute forany official or primary source. This map was intended to meet

National Map Accuracy Standards and use the most recent,accurate sources available to the people of the City of Novi.

Boundary measurements and area calculations are approximateand should not be construed as survey measurements performed by a licensed Michigan Surveyor as defined in Michigan Public Act 132

of 1970 as amended. Please contact the City GIS Manager toconfirm source and accuracy information related to this map.

MAP INTERPRETATION NOTICE

City of NoviPlanning Division

Community Development Dept.45175 W Ten Mile Rd

Novi, MI 48375cityofnovi.org

I

Providence Ring Road

Eleven Mile RoadBe

ck R

oad

Subject Property

Map LegendSubject Property

0 175 350 52587.5

Feet

1 inch = 318 feet

Rose Senior Living at Providence JSP13-81Zoning










I


Eleven Mile RoadBe

ck R

oad

Subject Property


PSLR Overlay

R-A: Residential AcreageR-3: One-Family Residential DistrictR-4: One-Family Residential DistrictRM-1: Low-Density Multiple FamilyRM-2: High-Density Multiple FamilyOSC: Office Service Commercial

0 175 350 52587.5

Feet

1 inch = 318 feet

Rose Senior Living at Providence JSP13-81Future Land Use










I


Eleven Mile RoadBe

ck R

oad

Subject Property


Single FamilyMultiple FamilyPSLROffice CommercialEducational

0 175 350 52587.5

Feet

1 inch = 318 feet

Rose Senior Living at Providence JSP13-81Natural Features










I


Eleven Mile RoadBe

ck R

oad

Subject Property


Wetlands

Woodlands

PSLR Overlay Concept Plan (Full plan set available for viewing at the Community Development Department.)

Planning Review

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Petitioner Edward Rose and Sons Review Type PSLR Concept Plan Property Characteristics • Site Location: North side of Eleven Mile Road and west of Beck Road (Section 17) • Site Zoning: R-3 with PSLR Overlay • Adjoining Zoning: North: R-3, One-Family Residential; East (across Beck Road): RM-2, High-

Density Multiple-Family; West and South: R-3 with PSLR • Current Site Use: Vacant • Adjoining Uses: North: Vacant and Providence Hospital Maintenance Building; East

(across Beck Road): vacant; West: Vacant; South: Single-Family • School District: Novi Community School District • Proposed Site Size: 23.61 acres • Plan Date: 02-18-14 Project Summary The applicant is proposing a Planned Suburban Low-Rise Overlay (PSLR) Concept Plan for a 182 unit senior living facility. The proposed 23.61 acre parcel would be split off from the larger Providence Hospital parcel located north of Eleven Mile Road and west of Beck Road. The facility would have both congregate care units as well as assisted living units. Recreation features for the residents are proposed along with associated site infrastructure and landscaping. An easement is being offered for the anticipated public trail connection from Beck Road through the site. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the PSLR Overlay Concept Plan to allow for the development of the subject property. The applicant has generally met the standards of the PSLR Overlay District as outlined in this review letter provided the requested deviations are included in the PSLR Overlay Agreement. PSLR Overlay Standards and Procedures The PSLR Overlay District requires the approval of a PSLR Overlay Development Agreement and Concept Plan by the City Council following a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission. In making its recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors. (Staff comments are provided in italics and bracketed.)

a) The PSLR Overlay Development Agreement and PSLR Overlay Concept Plan will result in a recognizable and substantial benefit to the ultimate users of the project and to the community. [The proposed development and site design provide a nice transition from the higher intensity hospital uses and lower intensity single-family residential uses thereby meeting the intent of the PSLR Overlay District. The site itself includes several recreation amenities for the residents of the proposed building and also includes the construction of pathways along the proposed private drive and the preservation of natural features that will benefit the community as a whole.]

b) In relation to the underlying zoning or the potential uses contemplated in the City of Novi Master Plan, the proposed type and density of use(s) will not result in an unreasonable increase

PLAN REVIEW CENTER REPORT

March 11, 2014 Planning Review

Rose Senior Living at Providence JSP13-81

Planning Review March 11, 2014 Rose Senior Living at Providence Page 2 of 5 JSP13-81

in the use of public services, facilities and utilities, and will not place an unreasonable burden upon the subject property, surrounding land, nearby property owners and occupants, or the natural environment. [The applicant has provided the required Community Impact Statement detailing minimal impacts on the use of public services, facilities and utilities. Additionally, environmental impacts have been assessed and mitigation proposed (where necessary) as outlined in the wetland and woodland review letters.]

c) In relation to the underlying zoning or the potential uses contemplated in the City of Novi Master Plan, the proposed development will not cause a negative impact upon surrounding properties. [The proposed building has been substantially buffered by existing and created natural features and should minimally impact the surrounding properties.]

d) The proposed development will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Novi Master Plan, and will be consistent with the requirements of this Article [Article 23B]. [The proposed development meets the stated intent of the PSLR Overlay District to encourage transitional uses between higher intensity office and retail uses and lower intensity residential uses while maintaining the residential character of the area as outlined in this review letter.]

The City Council, after review of the Planning Commission's recommendation, consideration of the input received at the public hearing, and review of other information relative to the PSLR Overlay Development Agreement Application and PSLR Overlay Concept Plan, may Indicate its tentative approval of the PSLR Overlay Development Agreement Application and PSLR Overlay Concept Plan, and direct the City Administration and City Attorney to prepare, for review and approval by the City Council, a PSLR Overlay Development Agreement or deny the proposed PSLR Overlay Concept Plan. If tentative approval is offered, following preparation of a proposed PSLR Overlay Development Agreement, the City Council shall make a final determination regarding the PSLR Overlay Concept Plan and Agreement. After approval of the PSLR Overlay Concept Plan and Agreement the applicant may proceed with the standard site plan review and approval procedures outlined in Section 2307B and Section 2516. Ordinance Deviations Section 2304B permits deviations from the strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance within a PSLR Overlay agreement. These deviations can be granted by the City Council on the condition that “there are specific, identified features or planning mechanisms deemed beneficial to the City by the City Council which are designed into the project for the purpose of achieving the objectives for the District.” The applicant shall provide substitute safeguards for each item that does not the meet the strict requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The concept plan submitted with an application for a PSLR Overlay is not required to contain the same level of detail as a preliminary site plan. Staff has reviewed the concept plan inasmuch detail as possible to determine what deviations from the Zoning Ordinance are currently shown. The applicant has elected to proceed with the plan as submitted with the understanding that those deviations would have to be approved by City Council in a proposed PSLR Overlay agreement. The following are deviations from the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances shown on the concept plan: 1. Front Yard Parking: Per Section 2305B.1.d of the Zoning Ordinance, developments utilizing the PSLR

Overlay option cannot have parking in the front yard and parking in side and rear yards must be screened by a 3-5 ft. undulating berm. The applicant has proposed front yard parking in the southern yard and a minimum berm height of 2 ft. and requested these deviations be included in the PSLR Overlay Agreement. The applicant has provided a narrative discussing the proposed deviation (identified as Deviation #5 and Waiver #1A in the applicant’s material) noting significant screening by natural features from the adjacent major roads and the functional need for front


yard parking on the double-fronted lot. It is staff’s opinion that these deviations should be included in the PSLR Overlay Agreement.

2. Maximum Building Length: The maximum building length permitted in the PSLR Overlay is 360 ft. provided a waiver is granted by the City Council and additional setbacks have been provided. While the applicant has met the conditions for a potential waiver as identified in the planning review chart, the total proposed building length is 467 ft. This would require a deviation to be included in the PSLR Overlay Agreement. The applicant has provided a narrative discussing the proposed deviation (identified as Deviation #1 in the applicant’s material) noting the unique building design that serves to break up the building façade creating the illusion of several buildings as opposed to a extended expanse of building facade. It is staff’s opinion that this deviation should be included in the PSLR Overlay Agreement.

3. Maximum Building Height: The PSLR Overlay Ordinance contains specific factors in Section 2305B.3 detailing façade standards for any proposed buildings. These standards are intended to require buildings that are residential in character and style and note detailed standards to evoke such a design. One such feature limits the building height to 35 ft. or 2.5 stories. The applicant has proposed a building totaling 41 ft. at the midpoint of the roof and has provided information in their narrative discussing the proposed deviation (identified as Deviation #2 in the applicant’s material). The façade review notes that the design generally meets the intent of the PSLR Overlay Ordinance and staff would support the proposed deviation. See the façade review letter for additional information.

4. Façade Design: The applicant has proposed a façade that does meet all of the requirements noted in the PSLR Overlay Ordinance. In particular, the proposed façade has pedestrian entrances spaced more than 60 feet apart and exceeds the maximum percent allowed of asphalt shingles (70%). These are discussed in the applicant’s narrative as Deviation #3 and Deviation #4. The City Council may permit building designs that do not meet the Ordinance requirements with a finding that the design meets the intent of the ordinance. The façade review notes that the design generally meets the intent of the PSLR Overlay Ordinance and staff would support the proposed deviations. See the façade review letter for additional information.

5. Accessory Carports: The applicant has proposed carports in both the northern and western yards. Accessory structures are permitted in the rear (northern) yard only. The carports proposed in the interior side (western) yard would require a deviation from the ordinance requirements. The applicant has provided information concerning the proposed deviation (identified as Deviation #6 in the applicant’s material). Given the fact that the proposed parcel will have two road frontages, it is staff’s opinion that this deviation should be included in the PSLR Overlay Agreement.

6. Signage: Per the Sign Code, a business ground sign or an entranceway sign are permitted for this development. The applicant has proposed both a business sign and an entranceway sign. This development is allowed one ground sign, either the entranceway sign located at Beck Road or the business sign located within the development. The location of the proposed entranceway sign and size appear to be in compliance with the ordinance requirements for both the sign ordinance and Zoning Ordinance corner clearance requirements. The proposed business sign complies with the size and height allowances but the setback is not indicated on the plan to determine if the location is in compliance. The applicant has provided information concerning the proposed deviation to allow both a business sign and an entranceway sign (identified as Deviation #7 in the applicant’s material). Staff would not object to the inclusion of this deviation in the PSLR Overlay Agreement given the distance between Beck Road and the actual entrance to the site.

7. Access Points: Section 2305B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that access drives for new building sites should be connected only to non-section line roads. An access drive has been proposed on Beck Road, a section line road. The applicant has discussed the proposed deviation in their provided narrative (identified as Deviation #8 in the applicant’s material) and noted that the Beck Road access is needed to provide a secondary point of access for emergency vehicles and to aid visitors and residents in locating and accessing the site. The traffic review notes no objection to the proposed deviation and also notes that the traffic volumes generated by the proposed use will be relatively low.

Planning Review March 11, 2014 Rose Senior Living at Providence Page 4 of 5 JSP13-81 8. Landscape waivers: The landscape review includes a detailed list of required and provided items.

The applicant is requesting three waivers to be included in the PSLR Overlay Agreement. The waiver to permit a 2 ft. berm height for the required parking screening as opposed the required 3 ft. height has been noted previously in this letter and is supported by staff. The Ordinance also requires a 3 to 5 ft. berm within the proposed greenbelt along Beck Road. The applicant has proposed a 1.5 to 5 ft. high wall where installation of a berm is not feasible due to the preservation of natural features and an existing landscape berm and has provided a supporting narrative (identified as Waiver 1B in the applicant’s materials). Staff would support inclusion of the requested waiver in the PSLR Overlay Agreement. A 4 ft. wide landscape bed is required around the entire building foundation and the applicant has elected to request a waiver of this item and has provided significant landscaping within the proposed courtyards in lieu of the foundation plantings. This is discussed in the applicant’s narrative as Waiver #2. Staff would support the inclusion of this waiver in the PSLR Overlay Agreement. See the landscape review letter for additional information.

9. Storm Basin over Sanitary Sewer Easement: The applicant has proposed the stormwater detention basin be constructed over an existing sanitary sewer easement. This would not be in compliance with Section 11-164(a)(2) of the Design and Construction Standards and would require a variance. Engineering staff does not support the proposed variance. See the engineering review letter for additional information. The applicant has provided information discussing the proposed variance as part of their application materials (identified as Deviation #11 in the applicant’s material).

10. Deviations and Waivers not Required: The applicant has provided information and narratives describing deviations required from Chapter 5 Section 1.2(D) of the City Code and Section 11-198 of the Design and Construction standards (identified as Deviation #9 and Deviation #10 in the applicant’s material). Per the engineering review letter these deviations are not required. Authorizations to encroach on required wetland buffer areas are addressed and can be granted administratively as part of the Preliminary Site Plan review and approval. Therefore, Waiver #3 in the applicant’s narrative will not be addressed at this time.

Ordinance Requirements This project was reviewed for conformance with Article 23B (PSLR Planned Suburban Low-Rise Overlay District), Article 24 (Schedule of Regulations), Article 25 (General Provisions) and any other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Items in bold below must be addressed by the applicant and or Planning Commission/City Council. 1. PSLR Concept Plan Requirements: A PSLR Concept Plan must contain a number of items as

outlined in Sections 2304B and 2305B of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted the majority of these items including the required Community Impact Statement. Also required are the identification of open space and recreation areas and a Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan. While these features have been incorporated into the plan set, the applicant should include a plan sheet labeled Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as well as a sheet labeled Open Space and Recreation identifying the relevant elements.

2. Outdoor Lighting: The applicant should provide a photometric plan and accompanying details to comply with Ordinance requirements at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review.

3. Proposed sidewalk: The applicant has proposed a 5 ft. sidewalk along the private drive. Per the Non-Motorized Master Plan this sidewalk should be increased to 6 ft. in width.

4. Parking Space Dimensions: The applicant should indicate 4” curbs wherever 17 ft. spaces are proposed.

5. Maximum Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage by all buildings cannot exceed 25%. The applicant has indicated lot coverage of less than 10% in their response letter. Lot coverage statistics should be provided on the plan set.

6. Bicycle Parking Facilities: The applicant has provided the required bicycle parking. However, details for the bicycle parking areas have not been shown. The applicant should provide a


bicycle parking detail demonstrating compliance with the layout standards detailed in Section 2526.

7. Property Split: The proposed property split must be submitted to the Assessing Department for approval.

8. Economic Information: The applicant has the estimated that the proposed development will generate $625,000 to $656,000 in property taxes based on the current City millage. Approximately 150 jobs will be generated during the construction of the site and approximately 80 full and 20 part-time positions will be created at final build-out.

9. Environmental Impacts: There are significant natural features on the site that are detailed in the wetland and woodland review letters. The wetland and woodland permits themselves will not be considered until consideration of the Preliminary Site Plan.

Site Addressing The applicant should contact the Building Division for an address prior to applying for a building permit. Building permit applications cannot be processed without a correct address. The address application can be found on the Internet at www.cityofnovi.org under the forms page of the Community Development Department. Please contact Jeannie Niland [248.347.0438] in the Community Development Department with any specific questions regarding addressing of sites. Street and Project Name This project may need approval from the Street and Project Naming Committee. Please contact Richelle Leskun (248-347-0579) in the Community Development Department for additional information. Pre-Construction Meeting Prior to the start of any work on the site, Pre-Construction (Pre-Con) meetings must be held with the applicant’s contractor and the City’s consulting engineer. Pre-Con meetings are generally held after Stamping Sets have been issued and prior to the start of any work on the site. There are a variety of requirements, fees and permits that must be issued before a Pre-Con can be scheduled. If you have questions regarding the checklist or the Pre-Con itself, please contact Sarah Marchioni [248.347.0430 or [email protected]] in the Community Development Department. Chapter 26.5 Chapter 26.5 of the City of Novi Code of Ordinances generally requires all projects be completed within two years of the issuance of any starting permit. Please contact Sarah Marchioni at 248-347-0430 for additional information on starting permits. The applicant should review and be aware of the requirements of Chapter 26.5 before starting construction. Response Letter A letter from either the applicant or the applicant’s representative addressing comments in this and other review letters is required prior to consideration by the Planning Commission and with the next plan submittal. If the applicant has any questions concerning the above review or the process in general, do not hesitate to contact me at 248.347.0586 or [email protected]. _____________________________________________________ Kristen Kapelanski, AICP, Planner Attachments: planning review chart

http://www.cityofnovi.org/

mailto:[email protected]

Planning Review Summary Chart Rose Senior Living at Providence JSP13-81 PSLR Concept Plan Review Plan Dated: 02/18/14 Bolded items must be addressed by the applicant.

Item Proposed Meets Required? Comments

Property is Master Planned for Planned Suburban Low-Rise (PSLR)

No change Yes

Zoning is currently Planned Suburban Low-Rise/R-3

No change Yes

Uses allowed include multiple-family, congregate elderly living, assisted living/convalescent homes, live/work units, day care centers, offices, religious uses, schools, community buildings (Sec. 2303B)

Assisted living Yes, subject to special conditions

PSLR Agreement and PSLR Concept Plan must be approved by the City Council. Special Land Use Permit required.

PSLR Standards (Sec. 2304B and 2305B) PSLR Concept Plan must contain the following: • Legal description and

dimensions • Existing zoning of

site/adjacent properties • Existing natural features

and proposed impacts • Existing and proposed

rights-of-way and road layout

• Bicycle/pedestrian plan • Conceptual utility plan • Setback requirements • Conceptual layout • Conceptual open

space/recreation • Conceptual landscape

plan

Plan set provided. Yes? While this information has generally been provided in the plan set, for clarification purposes, the applicant should include a plan sheet labeled Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as well as a plan sheet labeled Open Space and Recreation

Buildings shall front on a dedicated non-section line public street or an approved private drive

Frontage on an approved private drive

Yes


Building Setbacks: Front (south): Min. 30 ft. Max. 75 ft. Ext. Side (east): Min. 30 ft. Max. 75 ft. Int. Side (west): 30 ft. Rear (north): 30 ft. Building Setbacks to accommodate a building up to 360 ft. long Front (south): Min. 90 ft. Ext. Side (east): Min. 90 ft. Int. Side (west): 90 ft. Rear (north): 90 ft.

Front (south): 578 ft. Ext. Side (east): 795 ft. Int. Side (west): 142 ft. Rear (north): 90 ft.

Yes

All buildings, parking lots and loading areas shall be separated from section line road rights-of-way by a 50 ft. landscape buffer containing an undulating 3-5 ft. tall landscaped berm.

Parcel does not abut a section line road.

N/A

Off-Street parking standards: • Located in the rear or

interior side yard • Screened by 3-5 ft.

undulating berm • Min. 15 ft. from all

buildings • Setbacks:

Front (south): Not permitted

Ext. Side (east): Min. 30 ft. Int. Side adjacent to single-family residential (west): 30 ft.

• Located in all yards

• Berm indicated (min. 2’ in height)

• Min. 20 ft. from building

• Front: parking proposed Ext. Side: 490 ft. Int. Side: 30 ft.

No Applicant should adjust site layout to remove the front yard parking and increase the minimum berm height by 1’. -OR- City Council may approve deviations from the Ordinance standards as part of a PSLR Overlay Development Agreement provided there are specific, identified features or planning mechanisms deemed beneficial to the City which are designed into the project for the purpose of achieving the objectives for the District. Safeguards shall be provided for each regulation where there is noncompliance on the PSLR Overlay Concept Plan.


Loading and unloading area must be provided

Loading area identified on the north side of the building

Yes

Max. Building Length 180 ft. 467 ft. No Applicant should adjust the layout to accommodate the maximum permitted building length. Site layout does meet the standards identified below that permit a waiver of building length by City Council up to 360 ft. However, since the building exceeds 360 ft., the City Council may consider a variance from the ordinance provisions. -OR- The City Council may modify the maximum permitted building length if the building includes common areas with (1) a minimum capacity of 50 people for dining, recreation or social activities and (2) The building is setback an additional 1 ft. for every 3 ft. of building length in excess of 180 ft. from all property lines abutting a residential district. In no case can the building exceed 360 ft.

Streetscape amenities must be included

Amenities shown on landscape plan

Yes

Outdoor Lighting No lighting plan provided

Applicant should provide a lighting plan consistent with the standards identified in Section 2511 and Section 2305B.1.j of the Zoning Ordinance with the Preliminary Site Plan submittal.


Circulation Standards • Full time access drives

shall be connected only to non-section line roads

• New roads shall be designed as pedestrian/bicycle focused corridors as identified in the Non-Motorized Master Plan

• Facilities shall be connected to the existing pedestrian network

• Full-time access provided – see traffic review letter

• New roadway includes a 5’ sidewalk, pedestrian crossings, and a refuge island near the main intersection with Beck Road

• Connected to existing pedestrian network

No Sidewalk should be increased to 6’ in width.

Max. Bldg. Height 35 ft. or 2 ½ stories Buildings must be designed with a “single-family residential character”

41 ft. to roof mid-point

No Applicant should adjust the building design to meet the required height. -OR- The City Council may permit building designs that do not meet the Ordinance requirements with a finding (following a positive staff recommendation) that the design meets the intent of the district. See the façade review comments for additional information.

Parking Area Requirements (Sec. 2505 and 2506) Congregate Care: 3 spaces for each 4 units and 1 for each employee 69 units/4x3=52 spaces Assisted Living: 1 space for each 4 beds and 1 for each employee 119 beds/4 = 30 spaces 65 employees = 65 spaces

181 spaces provided

Yes


52+30+65 = 147 spaces required Parking Space Dimensions and Maneuvering Lanes 9’ x 19’ parking space dimensions and 24’ wide drives. 9’ x 17’ parking spaces allowed along 7’ wide interior sidewalks as long as detail indicates a 4” curb at these locations and along landscaping.

9’ x 19’ parking space dimensions and min. 26’ wide drives. 9’ x 17’ parking spaces proposed along 7’ wide interior sidewalks

Yes Applicant should indicate a 4” curb wherever 17’ spaces are proposed

Barrier Free Spaces (Barrier Free Code) 6 barrier free spaces required (1 van accessible)

8 barrier free spaces proposed (4 van accessible)

Yes

Barrier Free Space Dimensions (Barrier Free Code) 8’ wide with a 5’ wide access aisle for standard barrier free spaces, and 8‘ wide with an 8’ wide access aisle for van accessible spaces

Barrier free spaces dimensioned correctly

Yes

Barrier Free Signs (Barrier Free Design Graphics Manual) One sign for each accessible parking space.

Barrier free signage included

Yes

General Requirements Maximum lot coverage by all buildings cannot exceed 25% (Sec. 2400)

Lot coverage less than 10% (as indicated in response letter

Yes The applicant should provide maximum lot coverage statistics on the plan set.

Accessory Structure Setback- Dumpster (Sec. 2503) Accessory structures should be setback a minimum of 10 feet from any building unless

Dumpsters indicated in the rear yard setback and screened appropriately

Yes


structurally attached and setback the same as parking from all property lines; the structure must be in the rear or interior side yard. Dumpster (Chap. 21, Sec. 21-145) Screening of not less than 5 feet required, interior bumpers or posts required. Enclosure to match building materials and be at least one foot taller than height of refuse bin. Accessory Structure – Carport (Sec. 2503.2) Shall be located in the rear yard and shall meet the building setback requirements of the district. Building Setbacks: Int. Side (west): 30 ft. Rear (north): 30 ft.

Carports located in the rear and interior side yards Int. Side Future (west): 30 ft. Rear (north): 90 ft.

No Staff would support a deviation from the Ordinance to allow a carport in the interior side yard.

Bicycle Parking Facilities (Sec. 2526) 1 space for each 20 employees on the largest shift (minimum 2 spaces) 65 employees/20 = 3 Spaces required Shall be located along the building approach line and easily accessible from the building entrance Max. 120 feet from entrance being served or the nearest auto parking space to that entrance Must be accessible via a paved 6 foot wide route

6 spaces provided located near the main entrance and accessible via a 7’ walkway Details not provided

Yes? The applicant should provide a detail for the required bike parking.


and separated from auto facilities 4 foot wide maneuvering lane required with a 6 foot parking space width and a depth of 2 feet for single spaces and 2.5 feet for double spaces Development/Business Sign Signage if

proposed requires a permit

See the included sign review memo

Review Prepared by Kristen Kapelanski, AICP [email protected] or 248-347-0586

mailto:[email protected]

Engineering Review

Traffic Review

Clearzoning, Inc. 28021 Southfield Road, Lathrup Village, Michigan 48076 248.423.1776

Planning Zoning Transportation

www.clearzoning.com

March 7, 2014

Barbara McBeth, AICP Deputy Director of Community Development City of Novi 45175 W. Ten Mile Rd. Novi, MI 48375

SUBJECT: Rose Senior Living at Providence Park, JSP13-0081, Traffic Review of Conceptual Site

Plan, PSP14-0020 Dear Ms. McBeth: At your request, we have reviewed the above and offer the following recommendations and supporting comments.

Recommendation We recommend approval of the concept plan, subject to the needed variance being granted and the items shown below in bold being satisfactorily addressed on the preliminary site plan.

Site Description What is the applicant proposing, and what are the surrounding land uses and road network?

1. The applicant is proposing a three-story building containing 182 residential units, central

dining, activity rooms, and other amenities. The residential units, as described by the applicant’s traffic consultant, would include 75 assisted-living units, 69 congregate care/independent-living units, 38 memory-care units, and two guest suites.

2. The building will be located south of Providence Park Drive and west of Beck Road, between two large wetlands (see attached aerial photo). Vehicular access would be provided via a direct drive on Beck Road as well as a connection to Providence Park Drive (the latter is signalized at its intersection with Beck).

Traffic Study and Trip Generation Was a traffic study submitted and was it acceptable? How much new traffic would be generated?

3. The applicant’s traffic consultant, in a letter to us dated 2-13-14, provided a trip generation

table assuming that all residential units would be any one of the four ITE land uses bracketing the ones represented in the proposed building. None of the four use types would generate enough peak-hour trips to warrant a formal traffic study. The highest number of peak-hour, peak-direction trips would be 37, or half of the City’s threshold for an impact assessment.

Vehicular Access Locations Do the proposed driveway locations meet City spacing standards?

Rose Senior Living at Providence Park, Traffic Review of Concept Plan

P a g e 2

Clearzoning® 28021 Southfield Road, Lathrup Village, Michigan 48076 248.423.1776


www.clearzoning.com

4. Section 2305B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that “All uses that include the construction of a

new building shall be designed, to the extent possible, with full time access drives connected only to non-section line roads” (emphasis added). Since a direct access drive on Beck has been proposed, it appears that a variance is required. In considering that variance, it should be noted that the site would also have a connection to Providence Park Drive (which is signalized at Beck), and the total peak-hour traffic generated by the proposed use will be relatively low.

5. As can be seen in the attached vicinity aerial photo, there are no other driveways of consequence in the general proximity of the proposed new access drive on Beck.

Vehicular Access Improvements Would there be any improvements to the abutting road(s) at the proposed access point(s)?

6. None are proposed. However, given that historic count data show Beck Road carrying more

than 17,000 vehicle per day adjacent to the site, DCS Fig IX.10 indicates that a deceleration taper is warranted regardless of the number of peak-hour entering right turns. Accordingly, City-minimum 75-ft acceleration and deceleration tapers should be added at the Beck Road drive. These tapers should transition smoothly (or tangentially) into and out of the curb returns (hence, the latter will complete less than the normal 90-degree arc).

Access Drive Design and Control Are the proposed design, pavement markings, and signage satisfactory?

7. The designs of the north and east access points, where shown at maximum scale (on sheets

C-06 and C-08, respectively), should be dimensioned. By scaling, however, we note that: a. At the connection to Providence Park Drive, Rose’s north access drive would be 40-ft wide,

striped into separate left-only and right-only lanes over the northernmost 100 ft, and equipped with 25-ft-radius curb returns. Given the proposed width near the intersection, the southbound lane should be slightly wider than the two northbound lanes. No later than the final site plan, a STOP (R1-1) sign should be proposed, along with pavement marking specifications.

b. The preceding guidance also applies where the north-south access drive intersects the east-west access drive.

c. At the connection to Beck, Rose’s east access drive would be a modified version of the City-

standard boulevard-style drive. The entering roadway would be the City-minimum width of 22 ft, the island would be the City-minimum width of 8 ft, and it appears that the exiting roadway would exceed the City-maximum width of 27 ft by 1 ft. We support the proposed entering width, but (i) given the presence of the proposed monument sign on the island, the island should be at least the City-standard width of 10 ft (per DCS Fig IX.3), and (ii) the exiting (eastbound) roadway should be reduced in width to 27 ft (back-to-back).


P a g e 3



www.clearzoning.com

d. Also along the east access drive near Beck, the curb returns appear to have an acceptable

radius of 30 ft. These returns will obviously have to be set back to accommodate the required decel/accel tapers. The nose offset of the island appears to be only 9-10 ft relative to the southbound through lane, and it must be increased to at least the City standard of 12 ft. No later than the final site plan, a STOP (R1-1) sign should be proposed, along with pavement marking specifications.

Pedestrian Access Are pedestrians safely and reasonably accommodated?

8. Yes, in general. However, subsequent plans should show the locations of all required

pedestrian ramps, both internal to the building loop and at more remote site locations.

Circulation Can vehicles safely and conveniently maneuver through the site?

9. Yes, in general. There are several instances where oversize elements have been provided,

presumably to facilitate easier circulation by large emergency vehicles. For example, a 26-ft-wide aisle is proposed between opposing lines of parking and a 30-ft width is proposed along segments of the building loop with no abutting parking. In the interest of minimizing the amount of impermeable surface, the City may want the applicant to reconsider the need for these over-width elements (especially the 30-ft-wide segments).

10. Driveway centerline radii and curb return radii appear to be generally sufficient, but all should be dimensioned on the preliminary site plan so as to facilitate our more detailed review at that stage (repetitive radii can be labeled as “typical”).

11. It is unclear what the intended accessible routes would be for the two banks of barrier-free

parking spaces. While an ADA-compliant ramp could be provided on the end-island sidewalk stub shown for the westerly bank of spaces, the long implied detectible warning surface adjacent to the easterly bank of spaces seems to indicate that these spaces and their access aisles would all be flush with the abutting sidewalk (the grading plan sheds no light on this). Wherever feasible, the edge of a raised (or ramped) sidewalk should serve as a positive wheel stop in at least one wheel track of each parking space; where infeasible – such as adjacent to the two inner barrier-free spaces here – a single 4-inch-high bumper block should be placed straddling both spaces, with at least 17 ft of stall striping leading up the parking face of the block (the block may have to rest on the edge of the walk).

12. Perimeter parking spaces not equipped with carports could be shortened to 17 ft (to face of

curb) if the adjacent curb is limited in height to 4 inches. The applicant’s engineer may wish to discuss this issue with City engineering staff.

13. The raised speed table proposed on the north-south connecting drive should be limited in

height to 3 inches and equipped (at a minimum) with a SPEED HUMP (W17-1) sign.


P a g e 4



www.clearzoning.com

14. The gate proposed on the requested secondary emergency access connection to the north-

south connecting drive should be fully specified on subsequent plans (see DCS Fig VIII-K).

15. The cul-de-sac turnaround should include a non-diagrammatic Keep Right -> (R4-7a) sign on the island on the approaching street centerline, and be posted on both sides using 12” x 12” No Parking Symbol (R8-3) signs.

16. Subsequent plans should include a note assuring compliance with the Michigan Manual on

Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This will require, for instance, the use of yellow for striped centerlines and white for lane lines, stop bars, crosswalks, and undesignated parking space stripes. Relative to items already shown on the concept plan, it will also require: a. Abutting blue and white stripes where a barrier-free parking space abuts an

undesignated space (the detail on sheet C-08 needs to be revised accordingly).

b. White International Symbols of Accessibility (wheelchairs).

c. A code of R7-8P for the VAN ACCESSIBLE sign (formerly R7-8a). Sincerely, CLEARZONING, INC.

Rodney L. Arroyo, AICP William A. Stimpson, P.E. President Director of Traffic Engineering Attachment: Aerial photo

SITE

Vicinity Aerial – Proposed Rose Senior Living at Providence Park

Signal

Landscape Review

Review Type Concept Plan Review Property Characteristics • Site Location: Beck Road • Site Zoning: R-3 / Suburban Low Rise • Adjacent Zoning: Suburban Low Rise; North: R-3 • Plan Date: February 2014 (no date) Recommendation Approval of the Concept Plan for Rose Senior Living JSP 13-81 is recommended provided the necessary waivers are included in the Planned Suburban Low Rise Overlay Agreement. Ordinance Considerations Required PSLR Overlay Use Standards/Conditions for uses permitted subject to special conditions (Sec. 2503B.3.i)

1. Landscaping throughout the site shall be provided as set forth and regulated in Section 2509 of this Ordinance. All sites shall include streetscape amenities such as but not limited to benches, pedestrian plazas, etc. In light of the proposed plazas, outdoor activity spaces and amenities, the Applicant will meet this standard. Such features should by highlighted by the Applicant.

Suburban Low-Rise Requirements (Sec. 2305B)

1. Off-street parking is required to be screened from the view from adjacent streets by a 3’ to 5’ undulating landscape berm. The Applicant has proposed a 2’ to 5’ high berm. The area of the 2’ high berm is limited and is due to the fact that a taller berm cannot be installed. This area is screened by natural features and will be landscaped. A waiver for a berm less than 3’ would be required in this limited area. Staff would support the waiver.

2. In Suburban Low-Rise Districts, amenities such as but not limited to benches, pedestrian plazas, etc. are to be included on the site. The Applicant has provided significant amenities with the facility meeting these requirements.

Adjacent to Public Rights-of-Way – Berm (Wall) & Buffer (Sec. 2509.3.b.)

1. A 50’ wide greenbelt is required along Beck Road. This requirement has been met.

2. A 3’ to 5’ undulating berm is required within the greenbelt. An existing landscape berm will be preserved for a significant portion of this frontage. Due to limited space, the Applicant has proposed installing a berm where possible

PLAN REVIEW CENTER REPORT

March 13, 2014 Concept Plan

Rose Senior Living at Providence JSP13-81

Preliminary Landscape P lan March 13, 2014 Rose Senior Living Page 2 of 3

along the remainder of the frontage. The Applicant has proposed a 1.5’ to 5’ high wall in order to meet the buffering requirements where installation of a berm is not feasible. The decorative wall would need to be included as a deviation in the Planned Suburban Low Rise Agreement. Staff would support the waiver.

3. One canopy tree or large evergreen is required for each 35 l.f. of frontage. Along with existing trees to be preserved, this requirement has been met.

4. One sub-canopy tree for each 20 l.f. is required. This requirement has been met. Street Tree Requirements (Sec. 2509.3.b.)

1. One street tree is required per each 35 l.f. of frontage. Existing trees will be preserved and additional trees are proposed. This requirement has been met.

Parking Landscape (Sec. 2509.3.c.)

1. Required calculations for parking lot area landscape have been provided. This requirement has been met.

2. Required calculations for parking lot canopy trees have been provided. This requirement has been met.

3. Parking lot islands are required. No more than 15 contiguous parking spaces are allowed. This requirement has been met.

Parking Lot Perimeter Canopy Trees (Sec. 2509.3.c.(3))

1. Parking lot perimeter trees are required at one per 35’ of the parking lot boundary. This requirement has been met.

Building Foundation Landscape (Sec. 2509.3.d.)

1. A 4’ wide landscape bed is required around the entire building foundation with the exception of access areas. The Applicant has provided significant landscape within all of the proposed courtyards, but has not provided 4’ wide beds at every portion of the building foundation. A waiver would be required in the Planned Suburban Low Rise Agreement for those areas of the foundation where a 4’ wide landscape bed has not been provided. In light of the expansive landscape and amenities provided in the direct vicinity of the building, Staff would support the waiver.

2. A total of 8’ x the foundation perimeter is required as landscape area. This requirement has been met.

Plant List (LDM)

1. A Plant List meeting the requirements of the Ordinance and the Landscape Design Manual has been provided.

Planting Notations and Details (LDM)

1. Planting Details and Notations meeting the requirements of the Ordinance and the Landscape Design Manual have been provided.

Storm Basin Landscape (LDM)

1. A total of 70-75% of the storm basin rim areas is required to be planted with large shrubs. Please provide additional details on the basin plantings to assure this

Preliminary Landscape P lan March 13, 2014 Rose Senior Living Page 3 of 3

requirement has been met. Please also depict the required 25’ wetland buffer around the basin on the plan.

Irrigation (Sec. 2509 3.f.(6)(b))

1. An Irrigation Plan and Cost Estimate must be provided upon future submittals.

Please follow guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance and Landscape Design Guidelines. This review is a summary and not intended to substitute for any Ordinance. For the landscape requirements, see the Zoning Ordinance landscape section on 2509, Landscape Design Manual and the appropriate items in the applicable zoning classification. Reviewed by: David R. Beschke, RLA

Wetland Review

March 11, 2014 Ms. Barbara McBeth Deputy Director of Community Development City of Novi 45175 West Ten Mile Road Novi, MI 48375 Re: Rose Senior Living @ Providence (JSP13-0081) Wetland Review of the Conceptual Plan (PSP14-0020) Dear Ms. McBeth: Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT) has reviewed the Conceptual Plan (Plan) for the proposed Rose Senior Living at Providence Park project prepared by Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. dated February 18, 2014 (Plan). The Plan was reviewed for conformance with the City of Novi Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance and the natural features setback provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. The project includes the construction of a proposed assisted living building, associated parking areas, a proposed storm water detention basin and proposed wetland mitigation areas. ECT previously received a request to conduct a wetland boundary verification for the above-mentioned project and completed a site investigation on Thursday, January 23, 2014 with the Applicant’s wetland consultant, Brooks Williamson & Associates, Inc. (Don Berninger). The proposed site is located west of Beck Road, south of Grand River Avenue and north of Eleven Mile Road (Section 17). The proposed project is south of the existing Providence Hospital. The Plans prepared by Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc., dated February 18, 2014 show six wetlands within the assessment area of the parcel. The wetlands were clearly marked in the field with survey tape flags at the time of our inspection; however wetland flag numbers were not shown on the Plan. ECT has verified that the wetland boundaries appear to be accurately flagged in the field and depicted on the Plan. However, given the winter, snow-covered conditions during the time of our inspection, the results should be considered preliminary in nature. This preliminary wetland boundary verification/approval should be adequate for preliminary site planning purposes. We suggest that a final wetland boundary verification be completed during the growing season, and minor adjustments to the wetland boundary made if necessary.

The Wetland Mitigation Plan indicates impacts to each of the six different wetland areas totaling 1.43 acres of impact. The majority of the wetland acreage to be impacted consists of forested wetlands (1.36 acres of proposed impact to forested wetlands and 0.07-acre of impact to emergent wetlands).

Wetland Impact & Proposed Wetland Mitigation Review

The Plan indicates proposed wetland mitigation in three locations (west, central and east) totaling 2.86 acres. During the site investigation we reviewed the three potential wetland mitigation area locations. Each of the three potential wetland mitigation areas appeared to be suitable for this purpose given their location relative to existing wetlands. The west potential mitigation area is located within an area currently mapped as City-regulated woodlands and may require further

2200 Commonwealth Boulevard, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 769-3004 FAX (734) 769-3164 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Rose Senior Living @ Providence (JSP13-0081) Wetland Review of the Conceptual Plan (PSP14-0020) March 11, 2014 Page 2 of 4

evaluation. The central and east mitigation areas are located outside of areas currently mapped as City-regulated woodlands. It should be noted that based on the Plan, the Applicant now appears to be providing wetland mitigation at a ratio of 2-to-1 (2 acres of wetland mitigation for every 1-acre of proposed wetland impact). In general, the wetland mitigation requirement for impacts to forested wetland is 2-to-1. The following is a summary of the proposed wetland mitigation areas: Mitigation Area West 0.61

Area (Acres)

Central 1.23 East 1.02 TOTAL 2.86

It appears as though a MDEQ Wetland Permit, City of Novi Wetland Non-Minor Use Permit and Authorization to Encroach the 25-Foot Natural Features Setback would be required for the proposed impacts. All of the wetlands appear to be considered essential by the City as they appear to meet one or more of the essentiality criteria set forth in the City’s Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance (i.e., storm water storage/flood control, wildlife habitat, etc.).

Permits & Regulatory Status

It is the Applicant’s responsibility to contact MDEQ in order to determine if the proposed development would require a wetland use permit from the MDEQ. The MDEQ’s Coastal and Inland Waters Permit Information System (CIWPIS) notes that the permit application for this proposed project was received on February 19, 2014. The permit application has been assigned to a field reviewer.

Please consider the following comments when preparing subsequent site plan submittals: Comments

1. The Applicant shall provide the following information on future site plan submittals:

a) The existing wetland labels should be provided on the Plan for reference purposes (i.e., wetlands should be labeled as Wetland A, B, C or Wetland 1, 2, 3, etc.);

b) Wetland flag numbers for all surveyed wetlands should be provided somewhere in the Plan set;

c) In addition to wetland impact the areas, the overall acreages of all on-site wetlands should be provided;

d) The volumes of proposed wetland fill should be indicated and labeled on the Plan; e) Indicate and label all 25-foot wetland buffers/setbacks on the Plan (including the overall

acreages of all on-site wetland buffers); f) Indicate, label and quantify any proposed impacts to 25-foot wetland buffers on the Plan.

2. The Applicant has now provided proposed grading plans for each of the three proposed wetland mitigation areas (Conceptual Grading Plans; Sheets 1 through 3 of 3). In general, the proposed grading of the mitigation areas appears to be acceptable.


Prior to final approval, the Applicant shall provide a mitigation plan that includes the following information, and meets the requirements outlined in the Novi Code of Ordinances, Section 12-176 (Chapter 12 – Drainage and Flood Damage Prevention): a) Depiction and delineation of existing wetlands and watercourses in the vicinity of the

proposed mitigation area; b) Depiction of existing contour data within the mitigation area as well as within any adjacent

wetlands or watercourses, extending for a distance of at least seventy-five (75) feet into the wetland interior;

c) Proposed contour data within mitigation areas using one-foot contours. Spot elevations shall be provided at critical locations (e.g. inverts of water control structures);

d) A graphic scale, north arrow and date. The scale shall be one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet or larger;

e) Cross sections of critical areas; f) Identification of disposal areas for dredged material and depiction of the method of

containment; g) A cost estimate for the purpose of establishing a bond amount, including, but not limited to,

the cost of clearing, grading, soil placement, stabilization, planting and monitoring; h) Data indicating the expected hydrologic cycle, identifying the source of expected water

levels, as well as the invert elevation of all water control structures; i) The limits of disturbance and methods of stabilization and erosion control; j) A list of proposed plant materials, which shall include the botanical and common names,

quantities, size and spacing of plants and type of plants (e.g., bare root, balled and burlapped, containerized, etc.).

3. In addition to the wetland mitigation plan, the Applicant shall also provide a written

summary of the goals and objectives of the mitigation plan. This summary shall include:

• A description of the size and type of wetland to be constructed; • The hydrology expected; • A timetable for construction and plantings, as well as a guarantee of plant

materials for two (2) years.

4. The Applicant shall also provide as a part of the mitigation plan, a program to monitor the status of the replacement wetland for up to five (5) years after the wetland mitigation has been planted in the mitigation area. The monitoring program shall include annual progress reports submitted no later than December 1 of each year to the body approving the permit, which shall provide the following information:

• A measure of the percentage of coverage of wetland species versus upland

species; • A measure of vegetation diversity; • A description of vegetation and animal community structure; • A record and description of hydrological development; • A written summary of wetland development describing the progression of

wetland development; • A photographic record of the wetland for each year.


5. The Applicant should provide a copy of the MDEQ Wetland Use Permit application to the City

(and our office) for review and a copy of the approved permit upon issuance. A City of Novi Wetland Permit cannot be issued prior to receiving this information.

The Conceptual Plan is Approved as Noted for Wetlands. ECT recommends that the Applicant address the concerns noted in the Comments sections above in subsequent plan submittals.

Recommendation

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please contact us. Respectfully submitted,

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGY, INC. Pete Hill, P.E. Senior Associate Engineer cc: David Beschke, City of Novi, Licensed Landscape Architect Kristen Kapelanski, AICP, City of Novi Planner Angela Pawlowski, City of Novi, Senior Customer Service Sarah Roediger, City of Novi Planner

Woodland Review

2200 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 300

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

(734)

769-3004

FAX (734) 769-3164 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

www.ectinc.com

March 11, 2014 Ms. Barbara McBeth Deputy Director of Community Development City of Novi 45175 W. Ten Mile Road Novi, Michigan 48375 Re: Rose Senior Living @ Providence (JSP13-0081) Woodland Review of the Conceptual Plan (PSP14-0020) Dear Ms. McBeth: Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT) has reviewed the Conceptual Plan (Plan) for the proposed Rose Senior Living at Providence Park project prepared by Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. dated February 18, 2014 (Plan). The submittal was reviewed for conformance with the City of Novi Woodland Protection Ordinance Chapter 37. The project includes the construction of a proposed assisted living building, associated parking areas, a proposed storm water detention basin and proposed wetland mitigation areas. The proposed site is located west of Beck Road, south of Grand River Avenue and north of Eleven Mile Road (Section 17). The proposed project is south of the existing Providence Hospital.

ECT has reviewed the City of Novi Official Woodlands Map and completed an onsite Woodland Evaluation on Thursday, January 23, 2014. ECT found that the information provided on the Tree Survey Inventory plans (TS 01 to TS 10) appears to accurately depict the location, species composition and the size of the existing trees. ECT took several diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) measurements and found that the data provided in the tree list was consistent with the field measurements. On-site woodland is dominated by silver maple, red maple, bitternut hickory, shagbark hickory, red oak, basswood and several other species.

Onsite Woodland Evaluation

The entire site is shown to be 23.61 acres with regulated woodland mapped across a significant portion of the property. See Figure 1 (aerial photo).

As shown, there appear to be substantial woodland impacts associated with the site construction. It appears as if the proposed work (proposed building, roads, utilities, storm water detention basin, and the west wetland mitigation area) will involve a considerable number of tree removals. It should be noted that the west potential wetland mitigation area is located within an area currently mapped as City-regulated woodlands and may require further evaluation.

Woodland Impact Review

A Woodland Tree Replacement Chart has been included on the Woodland Impact Plan (Sheet L101). The Applicant has noted the following:

Rose Senior Living @ Providence (JSP13-0081) Woodland Review of the Conceptual Plan (PSP14-0020) March 11, 2014 Page 2 of 5

• No. of existing Trees to be removed: 620

• Trees to be Removed 8” to 11”: 277 Trees (Requiring 277 Replacements) • Trees to be Removed 11” to 20”: 203 Trees (Requiring 406 Replacements) • Trees to be Removed 20” to 30”: 96 Trees (Requiring 288 Replacements) • Trees to be Removed 30”+: 52 Trees (Requiring 208 Replacements)

• Total Replacement Trees Required: 1,179

• Total Replacement Tree Credits Provided: 1,179

(The Applicant proposes to pay 0 credits to the City of Novi Tree Fund) The Woodland Replacement plans (L103 & L104) addresses the required woodland replacement tree credits by planting perennials, small shrubs, large shrubs, sub-canopy trees, evergreen trees and seeding. The Planning Commission may approve the planting of a variety of native woodland plants toward required woodland replacement credits. The Applicant has proposed to provide 445 - 3” caliper deciduous trees as well as the following:

• 33 – evergreen trees (36” height min.) @ 3:1 credit ratio = 11 credits • 300 – understory trees (1” cal. min.) @ 5:1 credit ratio = 60 credits • 360 – large shrubs (30” height min.) @ 6:1 credit ratio = 60 credits • 424 – small shrubs (18” height min.) @ 8:1 credit ratio = 53 credits • 6,250 – perennials (1 gal. container) @ 25:1 credit ratio = 250 credits • 21,000 sq. yd. groundcover seeding) @ 70 SY:1 credit ratio = 300 credits • Subtotal = 734 credits • 3” caliper trees = 445 credits • Total = 1,179 credits

Proposed woodland impacts will require a Woodland Permit from the City of Novi that allows for the removal of trees eight (8)-inch diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. Such trees shall be relocated or replaced by the permit grantee. All replacement “canopy” trees shall be two and one-half (2 ½) inches caliper or greater. As noted above, it should be noted that the Woodland Restoration Plan addresses the required woodland replacement tree credits by planting a variety of plant materials. In general, it appears as if the Applicant is prepared to meet the requirements of the City of Novi Woodland Ordinance.

Woodland Permit


Woodland Comments Please consider the following comments when preparing subsequent site plan submittals: 1. It should be noted that approval from the Planning Commission will be required for the

Woodland Restoration Plan which proposes to plant perennials, small shrubs, large shrubs, subcanopy trees, evergreen trees and seeding, in addition to 3” caliper deciduous trees. In general, it appears as if the Applicant is prepared to meet the requirements of the City of Novi Woodland Ordinance.

2. ECT encourages the Applicant to include a column on the Tree Survey Inventory tables (Sheets TS 07 through TS 10) that provides the Woodland Replacements Required for each proposed tree removal. ECT suggests that the Applicant review and revise the Woodland Replacement requirements as necessary. All information in the tree list should be consistent with that shown in the Plan Sheets.

3. In addition, for multi-stemmed trees, Woodland Replacements required are calculated by

summing the d.b.h. of each stem greater than or equal to 8 inches and dividing the total by 8. All fractional Woodland Replacements required are rounded up to the nearest whole tree replacement. Please confirm that the quantity of Woodland Replacements required has been calculated correctly.

4. The Applicant shall more clearly indicate the locations/types of proposed Woodland

Replacement Tree credits on the Plan. Although the Woodland Replacement Plans appear to tabulate the quantities of different proposed replacement plant material (i.e., canopy trees, evergreen trees, large/small shrubs, etc.), the species and locations of this material should be clearly indicated on the Plan (in table form and in plan view). The species of the Woodland Replacement material (including the groundcover seeding) does not appear to be included on the Plan.

5. Replacement material should not be located 1) within 10’ of built structures or the edges of

utility easements and 2) over underground structures/utilities or within their associated easements. In addition, replacement trees spacing should follow the Plant Material Spacing Relationship Chart for Landscape Purposes found in the City of Novi Landscape Design Manual (http://www.cityofnovi.org/services/commdev/InfoSheetsManualsAndPubs/LandscapeDesignManual.pdf). Please review and revise the Woodland Replacement Plan as necessary.

6. A Woodland Replacement financial guarantee for the planting of replacement trees will be

required. This financial guarantee will be based on the number of woodland replacement trees required (1,179) at a per tree value of $400. Based on a successful inspection of the installed on-site Woodland Replacement trees, seventy-five percent (75%) of the original Woodland Financial Guarantee shall be returned to the

http://www.cityofnovi.org/services/commdev/InfoSheetsManualsAndPubs/LandscapeDesignManual.pdf�

http://www.cityofnovi.org/services/commdev/InfoSheetsManualsAndPubs/LandscapeDesignManual.pdf�


Applicant. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the original Woodland Replacement financial guarantee will be kept for a period of 2-years after the successful inspection of the tree replacement installation as a Woodland Maintenance and Guarantee Bond.

7. The Applicant will be required to pay the City of Novi Tree Fund at a value of $400/credit for any

Woodland Replacement tree credits that cannot be placed on-site, or at a Planning Commission-approved location.

The Conceptual Plan is Approved as Noted for Woodlands. ECT recommends that the Applicant address the concerns noted in the Comments sections above in subsequent plan submittals.

Recommendation

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGY, INC. Pete Hill, P.E. Senior Associate Engineer cc: David Beschke, City of Novi, Licensed Landscape Architect ([email protected]) Kristen Kapelanski, AICP, City of Novi Planner ([email protected]) Sara Roediger, City of Novi Planner ([email protected]) Valentina Nuculaj, City of Novi, Customer Service Representative ([email protected]) Attachment: Site Aerial Photo

mailto:[email protected]�





Figure 1. Site Aerial Photo (City of Novi Map Gallery, assessed March 10, 2014. Approximate project boundary shown in red). Regulated woodland areas are shown in green and regulated wetland areas are shown in blue.

Fire Review

January 7, 2014

March 25, 2014

TO: Barbara McBeth- Deputy Director of Community Development Kristen Kapelanski- Plan Review Center Sara Roediger- Plan Review Center RE: Rose Senior Living SP#: JSP13-0081 PSP# 14-0020 Project Description: Three Story Assisted Living Center consisting of one structure Comments:

1) Site plan shall provide more than one point of external access to the site. A boulevard entranceway shall not be considered as providing multiple points of access. Multiple access points shall be as remote from one another as is feasible. The requirement for secondary access may be satisfied by access through adjacent property where an easement for such access is provided. Corrected 3/11/14

2) Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building. (International Fire Code)

3) The distribution system in all developments requiring more than eight hundred (800) feet of water main shall have a minimum of two (2) connections to a source of supply and shall be a looped system. (D.C.S.Sec.11-68(a)) Corrected 3/11/14

4) Hydrants shall be spaced approximately three hundred (300) feet apart on line in commercial, industrial, and multiple-residential areas. In cases where the buildings within developments are fully fire suppressed, hydrants shall be no more than five hundred (500) feet apart. (D.C.S. Sec. 11-68 (f)(1)c) 3/11/14

5) Main entrance driveways must be a minimum of 24’ in width. 6) Proposed secondary entrance will require no parking signage and

the gate will comply with City of Novi standards. 7) Provide detail that the service roadway meets asphalt standard of

minimum of 35 ton and 20’ wide. 8) Addition of carports on the interior radius of ring-road greatly

reduces Fire Department access to the west side of the building.

CITY COUNCIL Mayor Bob Gatt Mayor Pro Tem Dave Staudt Gwen Markham Andrew Mutch Justin Fischer Wayne Wrobel Laura Marie Casey City Manager Clay J. Pearson Director of Public Safety Chief of Police David E. Molloy Director of EMS/Fire Operations Jeffery R. Johnson Assistant Chief of Police Victor C.M. Lauria Assistant Chief of Police Jerrod S. Hart Novi Public Safety Administration 45125 W. Ten Mile Road Novi, Michigan 48375 248.348.7100 248.347.0590 fax cityofnovi.org

Recommendation: Recommended for approval. 3/25/14- Per a conference call conducted on this date all the above items will be corrected on their next submittal. Sincerely,

Joseph Shelton- Fire Marshal City of Novi – Fire Dept. cc: file

Applicant Response Letter

BROOKS WILLIAMSONAND ASSOCIATES, INC.

30366 BECK ROADWIXOM, MI 48393

PHONE 248 · 624 · 9100FAX 248 · 624 · 3963

ENVIRONMENTALCONSULTING

March 27, 2014 City of Novi 45175 West Ten Mile Road Novi, Michigan 48375 Attn: Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development Re: Rose Senior Living at Providence Park JSP13-081 Conceptual Plans PSP14-0020

March 11, 2014 Wetland Review Response Dear Barbara: In response to your review of March 11, 2014, we would like to respond to your comments as noted below: Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT) has reviewed the Conceptual Plan (Plan) for the proposed Rose Senior Living at Providence Park project prepared by Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. dated February 18, 2014 (Plan). The Plan was reviewed for conformance with the City of Novi Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance and the natural features setback provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. The project includes the construction of a proposed assisted living building, associated parking areas, a proposed storm water detention basin and proposed wetland mitigation areas. ECT previously received a request to conduct a wetland boundary verification for the above- mentioned project and completed a site investigation on Thursday, January 23, 2014 with the Applicant’s wetland consultant, Brooks Williamson & Associates, Inc. (Don Berninger). The proposed site is located west of Beck Road, south of Grand River Avenue and north of Eleven Mile Road (Section 17). The proposed project is south of the existing Providence Hospital. The Plans prepared by Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc., dated February 18, 2014 show six wetlands within the assessment area of the parcel. The wetlands were clearly marked in the field with survey tape flags at the time of our inspection; however wetland flag numbers were not shown on the Plan. ECT has verified that the wetland boundaries appear to be accurately flagged in the field and depicted on the Plan. However, given the winter, snow-covered conditions during the time of our inspection, the results should be considered preliminary in nature. This preliminary wetland boundary verification/approval should be adequate for preliminary site planning purposes. We suggest that a final wetland boundary verification be completed during the growing season, and minor adjustments to the wetland boundary made if necessary.

Barbara McBeth March 27, 2013

BWA File #13-027 Page 2

Response: Prior to the start of the Oakland County growing season, Brooks Williamson and Associates, Inc. (BWA) will contact ECT to schedule a final wetland boundary verification. Final wetland verification is expected to take place during the last week of April 2014.

Wetland Impact & Proposed Wetland Mitigation Review

The Wetland Mitigation Plan indicates impacts to each of the six different wetland areas totaling 1.43 acres of impact. The majority of the wetland acreage to be impacted consists of forested wetlands (1.36 acres of proposed impact to forested wetlands and 0.07-acre of impact to emergent wetlands).

The Plan indicates proposed wetland mitigation in three locations (west, central and east) totaling acres. During the site investigation we reviewed the three potential wetland mitigation area locations. Each of the three potential wetland mitigation areas appeared to be suitable for this purpose given their location relative to existing wetlands. The west potential mitigation area is located within an area currently mapped as City-regulated woodlands and may require further evaluation. The central and east mitigation areas are located outside of areas currently mapped as City-regulated woodlands. It should be noted that based on the Plan, the Applicant now appears to be providing wetland mitigation at a ratio of 2-to-1 (2 acres of wetland mitigation for every 1-acre of proposed wetland impact). In general, the wetland mitigation requirement for impacts to forested wetland is 2-to-1. The following is a summary of the proposed wetland mitigation areas: Mitigation Area Area (Acres)

West 0.61 Central 1.23 East 1.02 TOTAL 2.86

Response: Continued wetland mitigation design is currently underway. The westernmost proposed wetland mitigation area is in fact located within the City’s regulated woodlands map. Any proposed tree impacts to this area are being addressed in the Woodland section of the City Application for Site Plan and Land Use Approval. The applicant and BWA recommend this area for forested wetland mitigation due to the following:

1. Proximity to adjacent wetland areas. These existing wetland areas are currently under conservation easement, and the addition of the westernmost basin would surely enhance the overall quality of the easement corridor by providing further habitat for associated wetland flora and fauna. In addition, and in BWA’s opinion, construction of wetland mitigation areas in close proximity to existing established wetlands is beneficial for the constructed wetland mitigation areas. This is due to the fact that the wetland mitigation basins are providing a ready seed bank in addition to ample hydrology conducive to the success of both wetland establishment and sustainability.

2. Proximity to nearby streams. In BWA’s opinion, wetland mitigation basins have historically fared better with proximity to established streams, as this proximity to an



active hydrologic source reinforces the hydrology required for both wetland establishment as well as wetland sustainability.

3. Majority of impacted trees are low quality in nature. Existing trees to be impacted are mostly comprised of low quality/ranking species for an ideal forested wetland habitat (i.e. Box-elder, American elm, etc.). Planned tree planting associated with the mitigation basin construction include such desirable species as swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), pin oak (Quercus palustris), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and other desirable tree species associated with high quality forested wetlands.

Permits & Regulatory Status It appears as though a MDEQ Wetland Permit, City of Novi Wetland Non-Minor Use Permit and Authorization to Encroach the 25-Foot Natural Features Setback would be required for the proposed impacts. All of the wetlands appear to be considered essential by the City as they appear to meet one or more of the essentiality criteria set forth in the City’s Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance (i.e., storm water storage/flood control, wildlife habitat, etc.). It is the Applicant’s responsibility to contact MDEQ in order to determine if the proposed development would require a wetland use permit from the MDEQ. The MDEQ’s Coastal and Inland Waters Permit Information System (CIWPIS) notes that the permit application for this proposed project was received on February 19, 2014. The permit application has been assigned to a field reviewer. Response: The applicant submitted a wetland use application to the City as well as the DEQ on February 19, 2014. The applicant’s wetland consultant, BWA, has been in contact with the MDEQ field analyst assigned to projects within the City, Ms. Sue Tepatti. Any and all clarification requested by Ms. Tepatti with regard to proposed wetland impact and proposed mitigation has been provided to date. As of the date of this response (March 26, 2014), the application is currently on public notice.

Comments Please consider the following comments when preparing subsequent site plan submittals:

1. The Applicant shall provide the following information on future site plan submittals:

a) The existing wetland labels should be provided on the Plan for reference purposes (i.e., wetlands should be labeled as Wetland A, B, C or Wetland 1, 2, 3, etc.); Response: Subsequent site plan submittals to the City will include wetland labels.

b) Wetland flag numbers for all surveyed wetlands should be provided somewhere in the Plan set; Response: Subsequent site plan submittals to the City will include wetland flag numbers.

c) In addition to wetland impact the areas, the overall acreages of all on-site wetlands

should be provided;



Response: Subsequent site plan submittals to the City will include total on-site wetland acreages with location.

d) The volumes of proposed wetland fill should be indicated and labeled on the Plan; Response: Subsequent site plan submittals to the City will include total volumes of wetland cut and fill with location.

e) Indicate and label all 25-foot wetland buffers/setbacks on the Plan (including the overall acreages of all on-site wetland buffers); Response: Subsequent site plan submittals to the City will include location of all on site wetland buffers/setbacks.

f) Indicate, label and quantify any proposed impacts to 25-foot wetland buffers on the Plan. Response: Subsequent site plan submittals to the City will include total acreage of proposed wetland setback impacts.

2. The Applicant has now provided proposed grading plans for each of the three proposed wetland mitigation areas (Conceptual Grading Plans; Sheets 1 through 3 of 3). In general, the proposed grading of the mitigation areas appears to be acceptable.

Response: Continued wetland mitigation design is currently underway.

Prior to final approval, the Applicant shall provide a mitigation plan that includes the following information, and meets the requirements outlined in the Novi Code of Ordinances, Section 12- 176 (Chapter 12 – Drainage and Flood Damage Prevention):

a) Depiction and delineation of existing wetlands and watercourses in the vicinity of the proposed mitigation area;

Response: Subsequent plans will include depiction and delineation of existing wetlands and watercourses in the vicinity of the proposed mitigation area.

b) Depiction of existing contour data within the mitigation area as well as within any

adjacent wetlands or watercourses, extending for a distance of at least seventy-five (75) feet into the wetland interior;

Response: Subsequent plans will include depiction of existing contour data within the mitigation area as well as within any adjacent wetland or watercourses, extending for a distance of at least seventy-five (75) feet into the wetland interior.

c) Proposed contour data within mitigation areas using one-foot contours. Spot elevations

shall be provided at critical locations (e.g. inverts of water control structures);



Response: Subsequent plans will include proposed contour data within mitigation areas using one-foot contours. Spot elevation shall be provided at critical locations (e.g. inverts of water control structures).

d) A graphic scale, north arrow and date. The scale shall be one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet

or larger;

Response: Subsequent plans will include a graphic scale, north arrow and date. The scale shall be one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet or larger.

e) Cross sections of critical areas;

Response: Subsequent plans will include cross sections of critical areas.

f) Identification of disposal areas for dredged material and depiction of the method

of containment;

Response: Subsequent plans will include identification of disposal areas for dredged material and depiction of the method of containment.

g) A cost estimate for the purpose of establishing a bond amount, including, but not limited

to, the cost of clearing, grading, soil placement, stabilization, planting and monitoring;

Response: Subsequent plans will include a cost estimate for the purpose of establishing a bond amount, including, but not limited to, the cost of clearing, grading, soil placement, stabilization, planting and monitoring.

h) Data indicating the expected hydrologic cycle, identifying the source of expected

water levels, as well as the invert elevation of all water control structures;

Response: Subsequent plans will include data indicating the expected hydrologic cycle, identifying the source of expected water levels, as well as the invert elevation of all water control structures.

i) The limits of disturbance and methods of stabilization and erosion control;

Response: Subsequent plans will include the limits of disturbance and methods of stabilization and erosion control.

j) A list of proposed plant materials, which shall include the botanical and common

names, quantities, size and spacing of plants and type of plants (e.g., bare root, balled and burlapped, containerized, etc.).

Response: Subsequent plans will include a list of proposed plant materials, which shall include the botanical and common names, quantities, size and spacing of plants and type of plants (e.g. bare root, balled and burlapped, containerized, etc.) 3. In addition to the wetland mitigation plan, the Applicant shall also provide a written



summary of the goals and objectives of the mitigation plan. This summary shall include:

• A description of the size and type of wetland to be constructed; • The hydrology expected; • A timetable for construction and plantings, as well as a guarantee of

plant materials for two (2) years.

Response: Subsequent wetland mitigation plans will include an attached narrative describing the goals and objectives of the wetland mitigation plan, including, but not limited to:

(a). Size and type of constructed wetland.

(b). Expected hydrology.

(c). A construction sequence.

(d). A plant material guarantee.

4. The Applicant shall also provide as a part of the mitigation plan, a program to monitor the status of the replacement wetland for up to five (5) years after the wetland mitigation has been planted in the mitigation area. The monitoring program shall include annual progress reports submitted no later than December 1 of each year to the body approving the permit, which shall provide the following information:

• A measure of the percentage of coverage of wetland species versus upland species;

• A measure of vegetation diversity; • A description of vegetation and animal community structure; • A record and description of hydrological development; • A written summary of wetland development describing the progression

of wetland development; • A photographic record of the wetland for each year.

Response: Subsequent wetland mitigation plans will include an attached mitigation monitoring narrative, which will include the following:

(a). A measure of the percentage of coverage of wetland species versus upland species.

(b). A measure of vegetation diversity.

(c). A description of vegetation and animal community structure.

(d). A record and description of hydrological development.

(e). A written summary of wetland development describing the progression of wetland development.



(f). A photographic record of the wetland for each year.

The wetland mitigation plan will include 5 years of mitigation monitoring as required by the MDEQ and City.

5. The Applicant should provide a copy of the MDEQ Wetland Use Permit application to the City (and our office) for review and a copy of the approved permit upon issuance. A City of Novi Wetland Permit cannot be issued prior to receiving this information.

Response: A copy of the MDEQ wetland use permit application was hand delivered to the City on February 19, 2014. A copy of any approved MDEQ permit will be immediately provided to the City upon issuance.

Recommendation The Conceptual Plan is Approved as Noted for Wetlands. ECT recommends that the Applicant address the concerns noted in the Comments sections above in subsequent plan submittals.

Response: Recommendation is noted. All concerns noted in the Comments section are expected to be addressed.

If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,

Don Berninger

Brooks Williamson and Associates, Inc.

pc: Edward Rose and Sons; Paul Mott, Nate Anderson, Rob Neu, Don Cucco

St John Providence Health; Richard Abbott Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc.; Gary Tressel, Rob Hardin, Chad Portugal, Nicole Fortino Grissim Metz; Sue Grissim, Theresa Pardington Pope Architects; Ward Isaacson, Don Neudecker Ecumen; Dena Meyer

Community Impact Statement

COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT

ROSE SENIOR LIVING AT PROVIDENCE PARK

NOVI, MICHIGAN

Edward Rose and Sons

February 18, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Impact on Police and Fire Services Page 1

2. Employment Opportunities Page 1

3. Tax Revenues Page 1

4. Utility Connections Page 1

5. Surrounding Land Uses Page 1 & 2

6. City Performance Standards Page 2

7. Proposed Land Use Page 2

8. Social Impacts Page 2 & 3

9. Environmental Factors Page 3 & 4

10. Social Impacts Page 4

11. Traffic Impacts Page 4

12. Proposed Site Amenities (I.E. Sidewalks, Public Parks, Page 5 Bicycle Paths Etc.)

1. Impact on Police and Fire Services As with any new development additional service areas of police and fire protection will be necessary. With proper planning and prevention i.e; interior building sprinklers, building security systems, on-site fire-hydrants, fire rated building materials and adequate water pressure, the demand for these services can be minimized. It is anticipated that the new development will support its fair share of these service costs through increases in property taxes.

2. Employment Opportunities

It is projected that 150 jobs will be created during the construction of the building and site improvements. Once the construction of the building is complete it will employ approximately 80 full and 20 part-time persons.

3. Tax Revenues Rose Senior Living will generate in the range of $625,000-656,000 in property taxes based on the current city millage of $53.2005/1000 value of S.E.V. of $12.5 million.

4. Utility Connections

Based on the City of Novi’s water unit factor list, it was determined that the proposed development will generate 62 residential equivalency units, which equates to an average of 0.25 cfs and a peak flow of 1.0 cfs. The estimated connection fee’s for water and sanitary sewer at $4.570/tap unit is $283,340.00.

Water pressures in this area range from 35 to 75 psi according to modeling by the City.

Uses Number of

Beds Use Factors REU's Convalescent/Nursing

Home 206 0.3 REU/Bed 62

5. Surrounding Land Uses

Adjacent Land Uses to Rose Senior Living at Providence Park

Existing Land Use Future Land Use** North Hospital and Medical Offices Hospital - OCS

East Multiple Family and Single Family Multiple Family South Recreation Preserve and Single Family Single Family and Educational Facility West Nursing Home/Suburban low rise Suburban Low Rise

**Master Plan for Land Use adopted by August 25, 2010. Page 1 of 5 Community Impact Statement Rose Senior Living at Providence Park

As shown above, the site is bounded by the following existing land uses: St. John/Providence Hospital Medical Campus to the north, single family and recreation preserve to the south and a combination of suburban low-rise and multiple family uses to the east and west.

The uses that are planned at Rose Senior Living at Providence Park are compatible with existing and potential future surrounding land uses.

The proposed development is consistent with the suburban low-rise office land use designations provided in the Master Plan for Land Use. The proposed three story building with a single family residential character meet the intent of the Planned Suburban Low-Rise zoning overlay district.

6. City Performance Standards The proposed development will meet or exceed all city performance standards, Noise and pollution levels, generated by automobiles and truck traffic at the site, will be equivalent to residential low-rise uses in compliance with Section 2519. The impact of these elements will be mitigated to some degree by the placement of building and internal and peripheral tree plantings. There is no anticipated negative impact upon adjacent properties due to noise or emissions from the proposed development.

7. Proposed Land Use The 23.61 acre site is at the northwest corner of 11 Mile Road and Beck Road, in Section 17, Novi Michigan. Presently the site is vacant. Please see Exhibit A, Proposed Use. The proposed 182 unit senior living development will provide various levels of care and will enhance the significant natural features and provide open space for water management and wetland mitigation. The proposed unit mix includes 69 congregate care/independent living units, 75 assisted living units, and 38 memory care units.

The proposed uses are consistent with the existing zoning of the subject site. The site was recently overlaid with a suburban low-rose zoning over the existing R-3 zoning. As noted above the proposed uses are consistent with the Future Land Use Plan for west Novi.

Due to the nature of the proposed development, the character of the existing site will be significantly altered. The once wooded character of the site will be developed by the Senior Living building and supporting parking areas. It is the intent of this proposal that the anticipated negative impacts by the proposed development will be mitigated by; innovative site design and layout, properly designed landscaping and buffering and sculptured grading.

8. Social Impacts

A. Existing Users/Uses: Since the site is vacant so no residents, merchants or business owners will be displaced by the proposed development.

Page 2 of 5 Community Impact Statement Rose Senior Living at Providence Park

B. Traffic Impact: A separate letter provides a trip generation analysis and shows that a traffic impact study is not required.

C. Large portions of the Providence Campus have been placed under wetland and woodland conservation easements. This area will flourish with animal and plant life. The preservation area will continue to be an essential component of the water management system planned for the proposed development and the Providence Medical Campus site.

The development will be linked internally with the sidewalks and crosswalks. A bike path is planned along the north side of the development to connect the residential neighborhoods to the hospital and schools.

D. Population Projections: The development expects to employ approximately 80 full time and 20 part time people, who may currently reside within the Novi area. There will be little change in demand upon school or City recreational facilities except those individuals that relocate due to employment opportunities.

9. Environmental Factors

A. Existing natural site features: The proposed site layout preserves mixed wetland, woodland, and flood plain on the property. See the Woodland and Wetland response letter attached for additional information.

B. Water Management Plan Impacts

The subject parcel, here in referred to as the Rose Senior Living (RSL) at Providence Park lies within the Novi-Lyon watershed. Immediately north of the subject development lies the Providence Hospital Novi Campus, which serves as the headwaters of the Shaw Creek in the City of Novi, Oakland County, Michigan. The property is located within the southeast corner of Section 17, Township 1 North, Range 8 East. The majority of the Development naturally drains to the south and west and into the Huron River Basin.

C. Natural features that will be removed: The proposed site layout would remove a total of 1.36 acres of forested wetland, as well as 0.07 acres of emergent scrub-shrub wetlands, for a total of 1.43 acres.

D. Storage of Hazardous or Toxic Materials: The proposed uses will not manufacture, use

or store any hazardous or toxic materials on the site .

E. Proposed Underground Storage Tanks: A new underground unleaded diesel fuel storage tank is planned for the stand by emergency generator. The tank is an integral part of the generator, as it is a double walled belly tank that the generator mounts to. The location of the tank on site is planned on the north side of the building near the service drive.


The new belly storage tanks will be constructed according to current regulations; Part 211 of Michigan Act 451 (1994), as amended. The design features of the new tanks will include:

1) Tank leak detection 2) Spill/overfill protection 3) Cathodic protection (if required) 4) Double-wall distributing piping

F. Environmental History: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by SME in January, 2014 for the subject site. The Phase I ESA Study was performed in general accordance with the scope and limitations of the American Society for Testing and Materials Practice E 1527-97. This assessment revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property.

G. Impact on Wildlife: Stream systems such as the tributary to the Novi-Lyon Drain and it

associates wetlands would typically support wildlife such as turtles and frogs, as well as aquatic reptile and invertebrate species. It should be noted, however that the quality of this system is low and that portions of it likely dry out during the summer months.

The field areas, with its scattered trees and scrub/shrub pockets, would normally provide habitat for common mammals tolerant of urban conditions. These would typically include squirrel, raccoon, skunk, opossum, white tailed deer, cotton tailed rabbit, ground hog, and fox. Common avian species, including songbirds and raptors, would also be expected to utilize this type of habitat.

Wildlife with the development will be displaced to other similar natural and disturbed habitats in the vicinity. Some wildlife may take refuge in the preservation area located on the west side of the property. This area contains a mix of open water wetland, emergent wetland, forested upland, and upland field, and would typically support the wildlife species listed above.

10. Social Impacts

A. Relocation of existing uses or occupants.

The proposed project does not require the relocation of any residential, commercial, or other uses. The entire development area is currently vacant land.

11. Traffic Impacts

The proposed development does not adversely impact the adjacent roadways as in a response letter to the City’s Traffic Engineering Consultants that included a trip generation analysis and found that traffic impact study was not required.


12. Proposed Site Amenities (I.E. Sidewalks, Public Parks, Bicycle Paths, Etc.)

The proposed project has added sidewalk along the connecting roads to Providence Parkway and Beck Road for pedestrian use. An area has been contemplated for the installation of the City’s off-road/neighborhood pathway as set forth in the Non-Motorized Master Plan Dated February 28, 2011. The development is also incorporating trees, shrubs, plazas, recreational areas and plantings along the City’s safety path to enhance the user’s experience while traveling the Providence Campus. Provisions have also been made for bicycle parking at the Rose Senior Living development for residents, employees and visitors to use an alternative means of access.


Applicant Requested Deviations

Documents

JSP13-81 / Rose Senior Living at Providence